Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a citizen and resident of Arkansas. While temporarily in Saudi Arabia, P was seriously injured when an automobile he was driving collided with a truck owned by D, driven by one of D's employees. D is a corporation incorporated in Delaware, licensed to do business in New York, and engaged in extensive business activities in Saudi Arabia. P did not allege pertinent Saudi Arabian 'law,' nor at the trial did he prove or offer to prove it. D did not, in its answer, allege such 'law,' and D did not prove or offer to prove it. At pretrial hearings, the question of proving Saudi-Arabian law was discussed. P's counsel said that he was not prepared to prove the 'law' of Saudi-Arabia and the judge proposed that the case be adjourned long enough to allow P to prepare such proof. P asserted that Saudi Arabia has 'no law or legal system,' and no courts open to P, but only a dictatorial monarch who decides according to his whim whether a claim like plaintiff's shall be redressed, i.e., that Saudi Arabia is, in effect, 'uncivilized.' P claims that lex loci does not apply 'where a tort is committed in an uncivilized country' or in one 'having no law that civilized countries would recognize as adequate.' P chose to rely on the applicability of New York 'law.' P presented evidence as to liability and D moved to dismiss the complaint. The judge specifically ruled that he would not take judicial notice of the 'law' of Saudi-Arabia and that the plaintiff's failure to prove that 'law' required dismissal. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.